Valid service of income-tax notices failed where delivery to an assistant did not satisfy civil procedure service requirements.

Service of notices under sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 depended on compliance with section 63(1), which allowed service only by post or in the manner prescribed for summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. Because the notices were not served by post, validity turned on proof of service under Order V, Rules 9 and 13. On the stated facts, delivery to an assistant at the shop did not establish service on the manager or show that the assistant was authorised to accept service. The notices were therefore not proved to have been validly served, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether notices issued under section 22(4) and section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 were validly served in the manner required by section 63(1) of that Act read with Order V, Rules 9 and 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 63(1) permitted service of a notice only in the manner prescribed by post or as a summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the notices were not served by post, validity depended on proof of service in the civil procedure manner. On the facts, the manager who alone could be treated as the relevant agent or manager was not present when the notices were delivered, and they were merely handed to an assistant at the shop. The existence of a business practice by which assistants received communications for transmission to the manager did not amount to evidence that the manager himself had been served, nor did it show that the assistant was authorised to accept service under Order V, Rules 9 or 13.

Conclusion: The notices were not proved to have been validly served, and the reference was answered in the negative in favour of the assessee.

---